These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effluent quality of a conventional activated sludge and a membrane bioreactor system treating hospital wastewater.
    Author: Pauwels B, Fru Ngwa F, Deconinck S, Verstraete W.
    Journal: Environ Technol; 2006 Apr; 27(4):395-402. PubMed ID: 16583824.
    Abstract:
    Two lab scale wastewater treatment plants treating hospital wastewater in parallel were compared in terms of performance characteristics. One plant consisted of a conventional activated sludge system (CAS) and comprised an anoxic and aerobic compartment followed by a settling tank with recycle loop. The second pilot plant was a plate membrane bioreactor (MBR). The wastewater as obtained from the hospital had a variable COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) ranging from 250 to 2300 mg l(-1). Both systems were operated at a similar hydraulic residence time of 12 hours. The reference conventional activated sludge system did not meet the regulatory standard for effluent COD of 125 mg l(-1) most of the time. Its COD removal efficiency was 88%. The plate MBR delivered an effluent with a COD value of 50 m g l(-1) or less, and attained an efficiency of 93%. The effluent contained no suspended particles. In addition, the MBR resulted in consistent operational parameters with a flux remaining around 8-10 l m(-2) h(-1) and a trans membrane pressure < 0.1 bar without the need for backwash or chemical cleaning. The CAS and the MBR system performed equally well in terms of TAN removal and EE2 removal. The CAS system typically decreased bacterial groups for about 1 log unit, whereas the MBR decreased these groups for about 3 log units. Enterococci were decreased below the detection limit in the MBR and indicator organisms such as fecal coliforms were decreased for 1.4 log units in the CAS system compared to a 3.6 log removal in the MBR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]